View Single Post
  #46  
Old 12 July 2018, 06:28 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is online now
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,569
Default

I don't know that I would take that paper as proof of how much he has changed when he doesn't seem to believe everything he wrote in that paper (at least not when it benefits himself). For example (pdf):

Quote:
The Senate should consider a rule ensuring that every judicial nominee receives a vote by the Senate within 180 days of being nominated by the President. Six months is sufficient time for senators to hold hearings, interest groups to register their preferences, and citizens to weigh in on the qualifications of a judicial nominee for lifetime office. At the end of that time, it seems that senators should stand and be counted. If a home-state senator or a group of ideologically-committed senators wishes to block a judicial nomination, they can do so. But they can do so by persuading their colleagues and voting, not through procedural maneuvers.
If he really thought this should happen, then he should refuse the appointment to the Supreme Court as Merrirck Garland's appointment confirmation vote should have happened mid-September by his timeline.
Reply With Quote